A Comparative Study for Modelling the Survival of Breast Cancer Patients in the West of Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the main cause of women cancer mortality. Therefore, precise prediction of patients’ risk level is the major concern in therapeutic strategies. Although statistical learning algorithms are high quality risk prediction methods, but usually their better prediction quality leads to more loss of interpretability. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare ‘Model-Based Recursive Partitioning’ and ‘Random Survival Forest’; whether the partitioning, as the more interpretable learning technique, could be a suitable successor for forests. PATIENTS & METHODS: The applied dataset for this retrospective cohort study includes the information of 539 Iranian females with breast cancer. To model the patients’ survival, various learning algorithms were fitted and their accuracy measures were statistically compared by means of several precision criteria. RESULTS: This study verified the stability of ‘Model-based Recursive Partitioning’, further to ‘Random Survival Forest’ deficiency to present a unique pervasive model. Moreover, except ‘Log-Logistic-Based Recursive Partitioning’, none of the methods significantly outperformed ‘Exponential- Based Recursive Partitioning’. CONCLUSIONS: Briefly, it was concluded that the loss of interpretability due to the use of over complex models, may not always counterbalanced by the amount of prediction improvements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".